DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/01/2025 and 02/21/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: acquisition unit, determination unit and control unit in claim 1 and various dependent claims.
A second determination unit in claim 6
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gokarn et al. US PG-Pub(US 20210174228 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Gokarn teaches an image processing apparatus([0033] FIG. 1 illustrates an example of architecture in which the method according to the invention is performed;) comprising: an acquisition unit(this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the corresponding structure was disclosed in ¶[0299] to be a processor and the cited prior art discloses in ¶[0043] a processor.) configured to acquire an image file including a plurality of annotations([0043] The server 2 comprises a processing unit 21 such as a processor, and generally a memory 22. Clients 1 could be any kind of user device, such as a mobile terminal (smartphone, tablet, etc.), a PC (laptop), etc.
[0044] “The candidate annotations are typically received and collected by the server 2 from clients 1 which are typically computers of annotators. More precisely, the server 2 handles a database of images (yet to be annotated), and images are advantageously first sent to clients 1 for being annotated by the annotators which reply with corresponding candidate annotation. The server 2 associates together the candidate annotation provided by different annotators for the same instance of the same image.”, ¶[0043]-¶[0044] discloses that image data with annotations is received by the server.); a determination unit(this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the corresponding structure was disclosed in ¶[0299] to be a processor and the cited prior art discloses in ¶[0043] a processor.) configured to determine a relevance between the plurality of annotations (0047] “Referring to FIG. 2, the method starts with a step (a) of segregating said candidate annotations into a set of separate groups of at least overlapping candidate annotations.
[0048] In other words, for n candidate annotations Ai with 0<i≤n, each annotation is assigned to one of k groups Gj with 0≤i≤k≤n. It is to be understood that the groups define a partition of all candidate annotations, hence the “separate” groups.
[0049] The idea is that candidate annotations of a single group are at least overlapping (and in particular are “sufficiently overlapping”, criteria for assessing this will be detailed), in other words are located very close, which tends to demonstrate that they are equally reliable.”, ¶[0047]-¶[0049] discloses determining a degree of overlap to determine relevance between the annotations.); a control unit(this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the corresponding structure was disclosed in ¶[0299] to be a processor and the cited prior art discloses in ¶[0043] a processor.) configured to perform control to integrate annotations determined to be relevant by the determination unit among the plurality of annotations into an integrated annotation and output the integrated annotation. ([0069] “In a following step (c), as explained the selected candidate annotations are aggregated into a final annotation of the given instance of said image. The final annotation is here built as a combination of regions of the candidate annotations of said selected groups (the selected candidate annotations) where at least a second predetermined number of the candidate annotations of said selected groups overlap.
[0070] Indeed, all the selected candidate annotations can be divided into elementary regions defined by all possible intersections of the selected candidate annotations. Each of these regions belongs to at least one candidate annotation, possibly more. Thus, each of these regions can be associated to the number of candidate annotations overlapping on this region (this number being noted r with 1≤r≤n′ for each.”, ¶[0069]-¶[0070] discloses integrating/aggregating the annotations into a final annotation for output to the user.)
Regarding Claim 11, Gokarn a method for controlling an image processing apparatus, ([0033] FIG. 1 illustrates an example of architecture in which the method according to the invention is performed;) comprising: an acquisition step of acquiring an image file including a plurality of annotations; ([0043] The server 2 comprises a processing unit 21 such as a processor, and generally a memory 22. Clients 1 could be any kind of user device, such as a mobile terminal (smartphone, tablet, etc.), a PC (laptop), etc.
[0044] “The candidate annotations are typically received and collected by the server 2 from clients 1 which are typically computers of annotators. More precisely, the server 2 handles a database of images (yet to be annotated), and images are advantageously first sent to clients 1 for being annotated by the annotators which reply with corresponding candidate annotation. The server 2 associates together the candidate annotation provided by different annotators for the same instance of the same image.”, ¶[0043]-¶[0044] discloses that image data with annotations is received by the server.); a determination step of determining a relevance between the plurality of annotations; (¶[0047] “Referring to FIG. 2, the method starts with a step (a) of segregating said candidate annotations into a set of separate groups of at least overlapping candidate annotations.
[0048] In other words, for n candidate annotations Ai with 0<i≤n, each annotation is assigned to one of k groups Gj with 0≤i≤k≤n. It is to be understood that the groups define a partition of all candidate annotations, hence the “separate” groups.
[0049] The idea is that candidate annotations of a single group are at least overlapping (and in particular are “sufficiently overlapping”, criteria for assessing this will be detailed), in other words are located very close, which tends to demonstrate that they are equally reliable.”, ¶[0047]-¶[0049] discloses determining a degree of overlap to determine relevance between the annotations.); and a control step of performing control to integrate annotations determined to be relevant in the determination step among the plurality of annotations into an integrated annotation and output the integrated annotation. ([0069] “In a following step (c), as explained the selected candidate annotations are aggregated into a final annotation of the given instance of said image. The final annotation is here built as a combination of regions of the candidate annotations of said selected groups (the selected candidate annotations) where at least a second predetermined number of the candidate annotations of said selected groups overlap.
[0070] Indeed, all the selected candidate annotations can be divided into elementary regions defined by all possible intersections of the selected candidate annotations. Each of these regions belongs to at least one candidate annotation, possibly more. Thus, each of these regions can be associated to the number of candidate annotations overlapping on this region (this number being noted r with 1≤r≤n′ for each.”, ¶[0069]-¶[0070] discloses integrating/aggregating the annotations into a final annotation for output to the user.)
Regarding Claim 12, Gokarn teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the method according to Claim 11. (¶[0093] discloses “the invention concerns a computer program product comprising code instructions to execute a method (particularly on the data processing unit 11, 21 of the client 1 and/or the server 2) according to the first or the second aspect of the invention for processing a plurality of candidate annotations of a given instance of an image, or for learning parameters of a computational model, and a computer-readable medium (memories 12, 22 of the client 1 and/or the server 2) provided with this computer program product.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokarn et al. US PG-Pub(US 20210174228 A1) in view of Carter et al. US PG-Pub(US 20210073977 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, while Gokarn teaches the image processing apparatus according to Claim 1, Gokarn does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of annotations includes character string information and region information, and the determination unit is configured to determine the relevance based on the character string information and the region information.
Carter teaches wherein each of the plurality of annotations includes character string information and region information (¶[0058], “the medical image analysis system may evaluate the annotations against each other with respect to relative positions (which may include evaluating overlap via a Jaccard index) and label. ”, discloses annotation data includes region of interest and label/text information.) and the determination unit is configured to determine the relevance based on the character string information and the region information. (¶[0059], “In one embodiment, the possible outcomes in comparing two annotations on the same radiograph from two different annotators are: (a) the two annotations agree in both position and label (in which case the system may consider this a verified annotation), (b) the two annotations agree in position, although the label is not the same but is from the same label category (which the system may mark as a confusion of severity), (c) the two annotations agree in label but not in position (which the system may mark as a confusion of size), or (d) an annotation from one annotator has no potential candidate for comparison in the other annotator's result (which the system may mark as a standard disagreement). discloses determining relevance by comparing the region information and label information.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Gokarn with Carter in order to compare both region and character information in the annotation data. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Gokarn in this manner in order to visually mark the presence and location of a given pathology or other condition. (Carter, Abstract)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Gokarn and Carter teach the image processing apparatus according to Claim 2, where Carter further teaches wherein the determination unit is configured to determine that annotations having the same character string information among the plurality of annotations are relevant. (¶[0059], “In one embodiment, the possible outcomes in comparing two annotations on the same radiograph from two different annotators are: (a) the two annotations agree in both position and label (in which case the system may consider this a verified annotation), (b) the two annotations agree in position, although the label is not the same but is from the same label category (which the system may mark as a confusion of severity), (c) the two annotations agree in label but not in position (which the system may mark as a confusion of size), or (d) an annotation from one annotator has no potential candidate for comparison in the other annotator's result (which the system may mark as a standard disagreement). discloses determining relevance by comparing label data from the annotation to determine relevance.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Gokarn with Carter in order to comparing character information in the annotation data. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Gokarn in this manner in order to visually mark the presence and location of a given pathology or other condition. (Carter, Abstract)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Gokarn and Carter teach the image processing apparatus according to Claim 2, where Gokarn further teaches wherein the determination unit is configured to determine that annotations that are relevant in terms of the character string information and for which regions indicated by the region information overlap among the plurality of annotations are relevant. (¶[0069]-¶[0071] disclose determining relevance by comparing region overlaps in the annotation data.)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Gokarn and Carter teach the image processing apparatus according to Claim 4, where Gokarn further teaches wherein the determination unit is configured to determine that annotations for which the regions indicated by the region information overlap by an amount greater than or equal to a predetermined amount among the plurality of annotations are relevant. (¶[0073] “Like for step (b) the predetermined number can be either a given value of expressed as a function of a rate noted taoB (Overlap Intensity Factor, which is the minimum rate of overlapping pixels required—such as 70%) and the number of candidate annotations (the initial number n, i.e. the number of annotators, or the number n′ of selected candidate annotation, i.e. the second number is taoB*n or taoB*n).”
[0074]” Note that the final annotation is the union of regions overlapping exactly r times with any r comprised between the second predetermined number and n′. The outlying regions are discarded.” ¶[0073]-¶[0074] disclose determining the regions having overlaps greater than a threshold i.e. 70% are deemed to be relevant while the other regions are discarded.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokarn et al. US PG-Pub(US 20210174228 A1) in view of Fukuda et al. US PG-Pub(US 20230196708 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, while Gokarn teaches The image processing apparatus according to Claim 1, Gokarn does not explicitly teach further comprising a second determination unit configured to determine metadata recording areas in which the plurality of annotations are recorded in the image file, wherein the control unit is configured to perform control to integrate annotations determined to be recorded in different metadata recording areas by the second determination unit among the plurality of annotations into an integrated annotation and output the integrated annotation.
Fukuda teaches a second determination unit(this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the corresponding structure was disclosed in ¶[0299] to be a processor and the cited prior art discloses a processor in ¶[0082] that performs the tasks of image analysis.) configured to determine metadata recording areas in which the plurality of annotations are recorded in the image file(¶[0045] discloses metadata is generated and recorded with annotation information of the subject.), wherein the control unit is configured to perform control to integrate annotations determined to be recorded in different metadata recording areas by the second determination unit among the plurality of annotations into an integrated annotation and output the integrated annotation. (¶[0031] “a metadata generation and analysis unit 70 generates various types of metadata conforming to the Exchangeable image file format (Exif) standard or the like that is added to image data when image data is recorded in the external recording medium 91. The Exif standard is a standard defining a data format of image files, and specifically, is a standard that defines a data format for adding various types of information (metadata) indicating image-capturing conditions, settings, etc., to image data generated by the digital camera 100 and storing the image data and the information (metadata) together as a file” discloses generating the metadata and ¶[0035] discloses processing the metadata to generate classification pertaining to the annotations in the image.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Gokarn with Fukuda in order to generate metadata based on areas of annotation. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Gokarn in this manner in order to detect subjects from an image. (Fukuda, Abstract)
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokarn et al. US PG-Pub(US 20210174228 A1) in view of Kondo et al. US PG-Pub(US 20220147240 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, while Gokarn teaches the image processing apparatus according to Claim 1, Gokarn does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to perform control to output an annotation into which annotations determined to be relevant among the plurality of annotations included in the image file are integrated and an annotation that is not integrated among the plurality of annotations.
Kondo teaches wherein the control unit(this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the corresponding structure was disclosed in ¶[0299] to be a processor and the cited prior art discloses in ¶[0097] a CPU that implements the tasks of image analysis.) is configured to perform control to output an annotation into which annotations determined to be relevant([0135] “In step S104, the comparison unit 113 determines whether or not the feature of the content image of processing target matches the feature of the immediately preceding content image. In a case where they have been determined to match, the processing proceeds to step S105.”, discloses determining if the annotations are relevant/match the feature in the content image.) among the plurality of annotations included in the image file are integrated and an annotation that is not integrated among the plurality of annotations. (¶[0136] “In step S105, the annotation operation input unit 115 determines whether or not an annotation operation has been input (i.e., whether or not a write operation has been performed). In a case where it is determined that the annotation operation has been input (i.e., the write operation has been performed), the processing proceeds to step S106.”
[0137] In step S106, the annotation control unit 116 updates the annotation (write information) to be displayed in accordance with the input. That is, the annotation control unit 116 reflects the annotation operation in the display, and brings the display of the annotation to the latest state.”, ¶[0136]-¶[0137] discloses once the annotation has been determined to be relevant or not the control unit updates the annotation to display to the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Gokarn with Kondo in order to control the displaying of the annotation to the user. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Gokarn in this manner in order to search for write information corresponding to the feature of an image of the processing target. (Kondo, Abstract)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Gokarn and Kondo teach the image processing apparatus according to Claim 7, where Kondo further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to perform control to display an annotation into which annotations determined to be relevant among the plurality of annotations included in the image file are integrated and an annotation that is not integrated among the plurality of annotations, together with image data of the image file. (¶[0136] “In step S105, the annotation operation input unit 115 determines whether or not an annotation operation has been input (i.e., whether or not a write operation has been performed). In a case where it is determined that the annotation operation has been input (i.e., the write operation has been performed), the processing proceeds to step S106.”
[0137] In step S106, the annotation control unit 116 updates the annotation (write information) to be displayed in accordance with the input. That is, the annotation control unit 116 reflects the annotation operation in the display, and brings the display of the annotation to the latest state.”, ¶[0136]-¶[0137] discloses once the annotation has been determined to be relevant or not the control unit updates the annotation to display to the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Gokarn with Kondo in order to control the displaying of the annotation to the user. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Gokarn in this manner in order to search for write information corresponding to the feature of an image of the processing target. (Kondo, Abstract)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Gokarn and Kondo teach the image processing apparatus according to Claim 8, where Kondo further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to perform control to display the annotation into which the annotations are integrated and the annotation that is not integrated, in different display forms. (¶[0061], “the comparison unit 113 controls the output control unit 120 to display the content image and the annotation (write information).
[0062] In a case where the features do not match, the comparison unit 113 supplies the feature data of the content image of processing target to the search unit 119 as the comparison result to search write information (annotation) corresponding to the feature of the content image of processing target. Therefore, the search unit 119 can search the write information corresponding to the content image of the new pattern in accordance with the switching of the content image to be output. That is, the annotation output control device 100 can control the output of the write information (annotation) in accordance with the switching of the content image to be output.”, ¶[0061]-¶[0062] discloses controlling the content image to be outputted to the user based on the annotation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Gokarn with Kondo in order to control the displaying of the annotation to the user. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Gokarn in this manner in order to search for write information corresponding to the feature of an image of the processing target. (Kondo, Abstract)
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Gokarn and Kondo teach the image processing apparatus according to Claim 7, where Kondo further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to perform control to generate an image file and output the generated image file([0138] “In step S107, the association unit 117 associates the latest annotation with the feature data of the content image of processing target, and generates write relevant information.”
[0139] “In step S108, the write relevant information storage unit 118 stores the write relevant information generated in step S107.”, discloses generating the annotation and storing it in memory), the image file including an annotation into which annotations determined to be relevant among the plurality of annotations included in the image file are integrated and an annotation that is not integrated among the plurality of annotations. (¶[0140], When the processing of step S108 ends, the processing proceeds to step S109. Furthermore, in a case where it is determined in step S105 that the annotation operation has not been input (i.e., no write operation has been performed), the processing proceeds to step S109.
[0141] “In step S109, the output control unit 120 outputs the content image of processing target. Note that in a case where displaying the annotation, the output control unit 120 superimposes the annotation on the content image to output it.”, discloses once the image file is created with the relevant annotation it is output to the user.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAN D HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOHN M VILLECCO can be reached at 571-272-7319. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAN HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights